European Union: Forthcoming Council Business

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union is as follows:
	
		
			 Date Location Event 
			 July   
			 1 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 2–3 Maastricht Competitiveness (Informal) 
			 7 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 7–8 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 8 tbc EU-Ukraine Summit 
			 8–10 Maastricht Social Policy (Informal) 
			 9–10 Amsterdam Transport (Informal) 
			 12–13 Brussels General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC) 
			 12–14 Rotterdam Informal Ministerial Education Youth and Culture 
			 14 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 15 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 16–18 Maastricht Environment (Informal) 
			 19 Brussels JHA Council 
			 19 Brussels Agriculture and Fisheries Council 
			 22 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 23 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 August 
			 No meetings planned 
			 September   
			 1 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 2 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 3–4 Maastricht Gymnich 
			 5–7 Noordwijk Agriculture and Fisheries (Informal) 
			 8 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 8 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 9–10 Noordwijk Health (Informal) 
			 11 Scheveningen ECOFIN 
			 13–14 Brussels GAERC 
			 15 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 16 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 17 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 17–18 Noordwijk Informal Ministerial Defence 
			 20–21 Brussels Agriculture and Fisheries Council 
			 22 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 22 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 24 Brussels Competitiveness Council 
			 27 Brussels (Possible) Council Transport, Telecom and Energy 
			 29 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 29 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 30 Den Haag JHA (Informal) 
			 October   
			 1 Den Haag JHA (Informal) 
			 1 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 4 Brussels Employment, Social Policy, Health, Consumer Affairs Council 
			 6 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 6 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 7 Hanoi EU-South Korea Summit 
			 7–8 Brussels Transport, Telecom and Energy Council 
			 Date Location Event 
			 7 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 8–9 Hanoi ASEM Summit 
			 11–12 Brussels GAERC 
			 13 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 14 Brussels Environment Council 
			 14 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 15 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 18–19 Brussels Agriculture and Fisheries Council 
			 19 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 20 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 22 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 25–26 Brussels JHA Council 
			 27 Maastricht Informal Ministerial— Development 
			 27 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 27–28 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 29 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 November   
			 2–3 Brussels GAERC 
			 5 tbc European Council 
			 9–11 Groningen Informal Ministerial—Integration 
			 9 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 10 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 10 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 12 Brussels Employment, Social Policy, Health, Consumer Affairs Council 
			 12 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 15–16 Brussels Education, Youth, Culture Council 
			 17 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 17 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 18 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 19–20 Rotterdam Informal Ministerial—Transport, Telecom, Energy 
			 19 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 22–23 Brussels GAERC 
			 22–23 Brussels Agriculture and Fisheries Council 
			 23 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 24 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 24 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 25–26 Brussels Competitiveness Council 
			 29 Brussels Transport, Telecom and Energy Council 
			 29–30 Rotterdam Informal Ministerial—Urban Development 
			 December   
			 1 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 1 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 2–3 Brussels JHA Council 
			 3 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 6–7 Brussels Employment, Social Policy, Health, Consumer Affairs Council 
			 8 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 8 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 9–10 Brussels Transport, Telecom and Energy Council 
			 9 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 13–14 Brussels GAERC 
			 13 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 15 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 17 Brussels European Council 
			 20 Brussels Environment Council 
			 21–22 Brussels Agriculture and Fisheries Council 
			 22 Brussels Coreper 2

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986: Review of Section 24

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am pleased to inform the House that the review of Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 has now been completed. Section 24, the so-called confidentiality clause, prohibits the disclosure by Home Office Ministers and officials of confidential information relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures other than in the discharge of their functions under the 1986 Act. It creates a criminal offence and provides a maximum punishment of two years' imprisonment and a fine for unauthorised disclosure of information. The Government undertook to review Section 24 in the context of our commitment to freedom of information.
	The conflicting views expressed about Section 24 in the course of the review have shown it to be a complex and contentious issue which does not lend itself to a decision that will satisfy all of those with an interest. The House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, as well as animal protection and antivivisection groups, have called for the repeal of Section 24. Those representing the views of many in the scientific community, whilst supporting other means of progressing openness and transparency about the use of animals in scientific research, have expressed significant concern about the potential impact of repealing Section 24 and have urged strongly that it be retained.
	In the circumstances, we have concluded that Section 24 should be retained for the time being. We do not, however, rule out the future repeal of Section 24 and, therefore, propose to review the matter again in two years' time.
	In the mean time, we are pressing ahead with plans to increase openness about the use of animals in scientific procedures by publishing anonymised information about projects licensed under the 1986 Act as part of the Home Office publication scheme under the Freedom of Information Act. This can be done without repealing Section 24 and is being taken forward as part of consultation with the scientific community about the revision and streamlining of the project licence application process. This consultation is now well advanced and new processes and training arrangements will be piloted over the summer 2004 with a view to publishing the first licence information under these arrangements in the autumn 2004.
	In addition, we have concluded that there would be value in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate publishing an annual report on its work. The inspectorate's first annual report will be published in the autumn of 2004.

Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders

Lord Rooker: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am delighted to announce the award of a total of £80 million to two more housing market renewal pathfinders over the next two years to begin to implement their strategic schemes. The funding comes from the £500 million market renewal fund announced in Sustainable Communities: building for the future in February 2003.
	I am allocating this funding to the two pathfinders in the west Midlands region. This will allow activity in the area to tackle the most acute weak and failing housing markets in the region and create sustainable communities. The investment from the market renewal fund will be complemented by significant investment from other public programmes as well as from the private sector.
	I am announcing today that the north Staffordshire market renewal pathfinder will receive £30 million and that the Birmingham Sandwell market renewal pathfinder will receive £50 million until March 2006 to start to tackle the problems caused by low demand. This is in addition to £4 million each received for an early action programme in June 2003.
	By March 2006 the pathfinders expect to deliver: in North Staffordshire, the demolition of over 80 homes, the refurbishment of over 300 homes, more than 280 housing acquisitions, and additional management measures to over 11,500 homes; and in Birmingham and Sandwell, the demolition of over 590 homes, the refurbishment of 1600 homes, over 150 new homes built, more than 280 housing acquisitions, and additional management measures to over 9,000 homes.
	Each of the pathfinder schemes has been independently scrutinised by the Audit Commission, and its findings have been published in a report. The Audit Commission has looked at the evidence base and the proposed strategy to help ensure that the schemes are realistic, offer value for money and will deliver long-term housing market renewal. To meet that aim the Audit Commission has made a number of recommendations about each scheme. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and each pathfinder have accepted all the recommendations and funding will depend on effectively addressing them.

NHS Foundation Trusts: Authorisations

Lord Warner: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The chairman of the independent regulator of National Health Service foundation trusts has today announced that, in accordance with Section 6 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, the independent regulator has authorised the following NHS trusts as NHS foundation trusts from 1 July 2004: Addenbrooke's NHS Trust, City Hospital Sunderland NHS Trust, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust, Papworth Hospital NHS Trust, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospital Services NHS Trust, The Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Trust, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust.
	The independent regulator has deferred consideration of the applications from Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust and King's College Hospital NHS Trust. Further decisions on both trusts may be made at a later date by the independent regulator.
	Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust has not been authorised. In the coming weeks, I have asked officials in the department to work with the trust to ensure that full support is provided for a further application for authorisation at a later date.

Export Credits Guarantee Department

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Further to previous Statements to the House regarding trading fund status for the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) (on 22 July 2002, Official Report, cols. 779–780W; on 17 December 2002, Official Report, col. 45WS; and on 26 March 2003, Official Report, col. 12WS), I can now tell the House about the measures which my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary and I have agreed to ensure the future stability and effectiveness of the provision of export credits and guarantees to British exporters. These measures will provide greater certainty for ECGD's future and a better deal for British exporters.
	This has proved to be a challenging and complex process. We have listened carefully to the representations made to us by ECGD's customers. We have also been able to take account of the relevant points made by the Trade and Industry Committee in its timely report to the House on 15 June (HC 506–1) on the work of ECGD. I welcome the Committee's analysis of the issues and I acknowledge its request to end the uncertainty about ECGD's future.
	The House will be aware that I have begun to strengthen the top management team at ECGD. Earlier this year I appointed Graham Pimlott as chairman. He has considerable banking experience and helped prepare the plans I am announcing today. On 5 July, ECGD's new chief executive, Patrick Crawford, who also has a strong private sector background, will take up post. They will be working with the Shareholder Executive, now part of the DTI, to prepare strategic and business plans for ECGD. Consistent with these measures, HM Treasury will adopt a more strategic approach to its oversight role.
	We have all been aware of the comparisons made between ECGD and overseas export credit agencies, and we share a determination to see the standard of service rise to the world's best. I can announce today that the Chief Secretary and I have agreed on a programme of action which will ensure that ECGD has a firm basis for its future operations and enable the new top management team to introduce measures that offer British industry a world class export credit service.
	The key points are:
	ECGD will be authorised to offer its full range of current products and geographical spread of business.
	ECGD will aim to reduce its premium rates to customers by up to £5 million per annum, as from April 2005, whilst complying with relevant international minimum premium benchmarks.
	The DTI will invest up to £10 million over two years from 1 April 2005 to help ECGD improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its operating framework in order to sustain reductions in premium rates.
	The Government will continue to press for the elimination of interest rate subsidy on a multilateral basis. In the mean time, ECGD will continue to run a limited fixed-rate export finance (FREF) scheme within the trading fund framework. This will be reviewed after three years in the light of experience and progress internationally.
	A trading fund will be established within a capital framework to enable ECGD to take a more confident and expansive approach to cover. The aim will be for ECGD to make cover available at the right price according to the assessment of risk.
	The Chief Secretary and I are agreed on the structure for the trading fund:
	The trading fund will have two separate accounts—realisations and new business. They will be capitalised and accounted for separately and have separate financial objectives.
	Capital for new business will be £1.8 billion. This capital will maintain the risk-reward balance on cover and pricing. There will be adequate headroom to manage both business growth and risk volatility.
	The new business account target rate of return will be an affordable rate, specifically designed to deliver ECGD's existing pricing regime. The Government have charged ECGD to continue pricing to break-even, in line with international agreements on export credit, not to maximise profits.
	The Government estimate the economic cost of this commitment to be approximately £120 million per annum, and will be publishing budgeting arrangements for this in the 2004 Spending Review.
	Introduction of risk management policies and systems based on best commercial practice.
	Revised Treasury consent giving ECGD greater autonomy on cover and premium policies.
	The new business account will have four aims: to provide a good quality of service at a reasonable cost to exporters, to break even in financial terms, to maintain the current risk-reward balance, and to remunerate its capital at an "affordable rate of return". This has been calculated to ensure it can be met from current premium rates without any across the board increase. Initially, the affordable rate will be set at 1.25 percentage points above the current national loans fund (NLF) rate of interest. At today's NLF rate, the affordable rate would be just under 5 per cent per annum.
	In establishing the framework for the trading fund, I had three objectives. First, it should provide a structure for managing ECGD's business consistent with the current risk-reward balance and business domain. In other words, ECGD should be able to maintain its support for current levels of business. Secondly, it should help to improve risk management. This is vital to assure taxpayers that they are getting value for money. And thirdly, there should be transparent arrangements for reporting and accounting the economic costs to Government associated with ECGD's business.
	These provisions will come into effect progressively from today. A period of operating a pilot trading fund from next April will give management the opportunity to test and assess these arrangements before we establish the right level of capital for a statutory trading fund to be vested in April 2007. During this pilot, we will consult customers on whether the pilot has achieved its objectives, with the intention of informing Ministers' decision on the move to a statutory trading fund in 2007–08.
	This challenging programme will put ECGD on a sound business and financial footing for the future. I have every confidence that it will allow ECGD's staff to deliver the service which its customers expect and deserve.